Article View: net.lang.prolog
Article #627Re: Standard behavior?
From: Randy Goebel LPAIG
Date: Mon, 26 May 1986 03:07
Date: Mon, 26 May 1986 03:07
14 lines
1167 bytes
1167 bytes
> In article <980@watdragon.UUCP> rggoebel@watdragon.UUCP writes: >> >Consider the following trivial predicate: > >> >a([]). > >> >a(_). > >> > > >> >Given the query :-a([]). , C-Prolog finds one match and UNSW Prolog finds two. > >> >Which is standard behavior? How do other implementations behave? ---------------------------------- I did not! My response to whoever wrote that question was that if _ is a universally quantified variable, then the logic defines the correct answer; NOT the implementation. Isn't that what logic programming is for? 8-). Randy Goebel
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<1019@watdragon.UUCP>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!watmath!watnot!watdragon!rggoebelReferences:
<980@watdragon.UUCP> <333@ivax.doc.ic.ac.uk>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site watdragon.UUCP Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!watmath!watnot!watdragon!rggoebel From: rggoebel@watdragon.UUCP (Randy Goebel LPAIG) Newsgroups: net.lang.prolog Subject: Re: Standard behavior? Message-ID: <1019@watdragon.UUCP> Date: Sun, 25-May-86 23:07:18 EDT Article-I.D.: watdrago.1019 Posted: Sun May 25 23:07:18 1986 Date-Received: Mon, 26-May-86 06:32:50 EDT References: <980@watdragon.UUCP> <333@ivax.doc.ic.ac.uk> Organization: U of Waterloo, Ontario Lines: 14